User talk:Lovelight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. (info: block log • contributions • deleted contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

This page is currently protected from editing. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may use the {{editprotected}} template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected.

Contents 1 welcome 2 Re: Starforce 3 LInkspam 4 Your Myspace? 5 fbi 6 Your link title 7 FYI 8 RFM 9 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan 10 Help us craft a real encylopedia article 11 an article of possible interest to you 12 Could you give me your sources? 13 Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence 14 Incorrect use of a POV-tag. 15 Whitehouse using Wikipedia for Propoganda 16 Lies, bloody lies and conspiracy theories 17 Your insults. 18 Personal attacks 19 Escapade & ArbCom 20 Request for Mediation 21 That link 22 re: ArbCom Questions for Paul August 23 911 Conspiracy Theories/Alternative Theories 24 re: about hoaxes, conspiracies & paranoid times… 25 Straw Poll: External timeline in 911 attacks article 26 Re: Citation 27 it may be helpful 28 thanks 29 Not vandalism 30 Vandalism accusations 31 Quick Question 32 Sarcasm 33 Your edits to World Trade Center 34 they'll hunt you like a pack of wargs 35 Missle Citation 36 The Myth of the Corporate Media 37 911CD 38 TfD 39 3RR 40 ZeroFaults/NuclearUmpf 41 Vandalism accusations 42 3RR (2) 43 You have been blocked for 1 week 44 culpability 45 9/11 at Politics.Wikia.Com 46 Unhelpful edits 47 3RR (3) 48 Dennis Kucinich 49 3RR (4) 50 ocean of nonsense 51 Edit warring 52 RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Lovelight) 53 Blocked 54 How to contribute to 9/11 article in 7 easy steps 55 Requested community sanction 56 No personal attacks please 57 RfC Mailbox 58 Re:Community Ban

welcome

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for contributing! Did you know you can link to articles in Wikipedia by placing double square brackets around the name of the article you want to link to ([[like this]])? And if you want the word to show up as one word, but link to an article with a different name, you can "pipe" the link [[like|this]]. You can get other hints at Wikipedia:tutorial and Wikipedia:introduction. Again, welcome, and let me know on [[user talk:delldot|my talk page if you want to discuss anything or if there's anything I can help with. Peace, delldot | talk 18:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Starforce

Hi, Lovelight. Don't worry that your first steps into the world of Wikipedia have been difficult. From what I have seen from your contributions so far it is clear that you are a passionate, thoughtful person who is willing to put some effort into trying to create something good. In other words, you would be a great Wikipedian :P Anyway, I'm a little preoccupied at the moment with things unrelated to WP, but you can rest assured that I will be keeping a close eye on the StarForce article to ensure that there is no bias or unverified information that survives or creeps in the article. I hope you'll stick around and contribute more to our encyclopedia. There are over a million subjects to write about, so if you find that you run into conflicts there are surely other articles where your contributions will be more welcome. I noticed you said you were writing an article for a gaming magazine. In case you're interested, me and a few other Wikipedians run the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, where we would certainly appreciate your input in the discussion. Take care and hope to see you around! Cheers, jacoplane 23:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

LInkspam

Please stop adding linkspam to article talkpages as you have been doing repeatedly to [1] the September 11, 2001 attacks article. It does nothing to help us make the article better. Thanks.--MONGO 07:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you're here to disrupt...start being productive and stop insulting others.[2]--MONGO 12:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the other way around Mongo, and you know it… --Lovelight

Your Myspace?

Hi Lovelight, is that your myspace URL on the 'user page' ?

Nope, not my doing… That movie is particularly good tool, that's all. Have you seen this trailer? Lovelight 14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I read through your completely valid and important points at the 9/11 discussion page. I gotta say that Mongo is a fucking imbecile by the sounds of his text entries.. and to think people like him are admins here? *shudders* I quit contributing to wiki months ago after doing it for around 1 year. The arseholes who admin and pseudo-admin this page site are fucking legion and insufferable imo, cocksuckers like that brainwashed missing link get my fucking goat no end.

Oh, but you shouldn’t have leaved, it is sad whenever quorum leaves forum:)… Stick around, arguments are arguments, logic is logical, Mongo and his drugz will bow to the facts… Lovelight 14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

These links may be old to you, but if not def visit plz.. very esp this 1st one which has a 1 hour documentary / lecture which led me to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. The ppl putting forward the evidence and theories are professors, civil engineers and M.I.T. physics graduates with decades of theoretical and practical experience in the laws of thermodynamics and physics and also in reality. (<--- you listening Mongo?)

http://911revisited.com <---- 1 hour film here, essential viewing bro!

http://www.reopen911.org/

best wishes bro, The Late Great Bill Hicks

Thanks brother…this sort of data will be referenced sooner then later… Lovelight 14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This documentary is also essential viewing Lovelight.

"9/11 Mysteries" (watch this and learn about controlled demolitions) http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-6708190071483512003&hl=en

TLGBH

Hi L.L., I often see on these talk pages people saying things along the line of "its all conspiricy crackpots who question the official story.. where are cerdible doubters?" This first link lists a large number of credible patriots who openly question 9/11. (the second link is where I obtained the first link from) And feel free to delete anything I have posted on your page here, if it's getting to cluttered or if you are getting any hassle for any of my comments.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/southpark_911_episode_on_conspiracy.htm

regards, TLGBH

---

I thought these links may interest you LoveLight ;

US Army Announces Readiness for Total Military Takeover of America http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/us_army_announces_readiness_takeover_usa.htm

Keith Olbermann criticizes Bush http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7150467909517615896&q=keith+olbermann

Doomsday For The Internet As We Know It? http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/internet_doomsday_for_internet.htm

Also I was wondering why the information from the http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ link isn't mentioned or listed on the 9/11 page.. the link has quotes from members of the Republican party, US Army Generals, Ex CIA employees and many others who all openly, publically and vehemently disagree with the official 9/11 story. If their opinions on the tragedy aren't relevant to the 9/11 page then I dont know what is.

fbi

Hi, I've continued the discussion on: Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/FBI_poster_controversy#Continued_discussion_from_talk_page. Would you please take a look? — Xiutwel (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Your link title

Please see this note. I'm taking a wikibreak, so any follow-up will be by another admin. Please don't reply on my talk page. The article talk page is the suitable place for any response. You might like to read through the recent talk on WP:BLP. Tyrenius 03:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add potentially defamatory material, even to talk pages. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. [3] --Guinnog 18:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

All this dirt coming out… I've just added my little subpoena there, looking back it was wrong… no regrets though… Lovelight 10:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI

have you seen this discussion at the village pump?

RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/September 11, 2001 Attacks, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, ~~~~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/September_11%2C_2001_Attacks#Involved_parties my mistake on this. if you could inform the other involved parties (and fix mongo's) with the proper page, that would be appreciaed. I'm getting off

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109^Talk 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Help us craft a real encylopedia article

HI Lovelight. I think the tactics the Feds are using are just to wear us down, frustrate us and get us to go away. It would be much more fruitful to spend some time editing the redraft article and return later when their guard may be down. And also when we've bult a strong concesnus among not Federal employees (I'm tole the wiki word for them is clowns) for the new version. --Cplot 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

an article of possible interest to you

The Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_timeline article is in serious need of attention. It presents numerous Conspiracy Theories regarding alleged ties between Saddam/Iraq and al Qaeda as fact, when these theories have been refuted, rejected, denied and discounted by the U.S. Government, various U.S. Governmental hearings and commissions, and almost all the respected experts, many of whom are retired U.S. Intelligence. This is a clear case of misusing Wiki to advance fallacious and discredited Conspiracy Theories. Perhaps you could help there. Thanks in advance. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I can only imagine how are things there… in the trenches;)… I'll try to peek soon… brrr… Lovelight 16:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you give me your sources?

This involves the 9/11 article. I'd like some links to your sources for Jones, et al. so I can try to end the debate and solve the POV problems. You can either put them on September 11, 2001 attacks, under the section called WOT or on my talk page.--I need a vacation 18:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, but let us both relax for this weekend… I'm in heavy multitasking as it is, and I need a vacation as well… have a good one, weekend, that is…;) Lovelight 15:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence

I took a risky move and removed some of your comments from this page. I really didn't understand your argument, and I didn't understand why you included this letter, which made no sense. If this is a problem, I will immediatly restore those comments. The best evidence you have is the quotes from MONGO. Please let me know what you want me to do. i have not worked with you before, but I have seen your edits agains and again on the Sept 11 attack page, so I hope you are not offended. Travb (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I restored those edits: [4] when Nuclear messsaged me. I would suggest rewritting your section. Travb (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it’s a problem. From my perspective that letter is quite an embarrassment (for me before anyone;), and it wasn’t easy to stick it there. However, I believe that it serves its purpose and that reasoning and intentions are made clear… If there is more need of clarification I'll add some of the answers I've got to that particular unblock request… they are even more embarrassing, but this time for whole wiki… I'd say that there is no need to go there, and I'd say that there was no need for MONGO to go there too… Apart from that, its pleasure to meet you. Lovelight 15:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Love, as you wish, if you have any suggestions about my section, let me know. Is English a second language for you? Travb (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, wish I could share more with community, have some time to design upright user page… seemingly there are always some more concerning (or preposterous?;) – issues. Lovelight 11:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

& thx, your attention as well as intention are more than appreciated… Lovelight 12:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect use of a POV-tag.

In this edit you added a POV-tag to a talk article. POV-tags are for main articles only. So now you know, and won't do it again, right? --Regebro 15:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, and you won't misinterpret my intentions or disrupt the flow of discussions, it's not decent thing to do… so now that you know it you wont repeat it, right? Lovelight 15:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I can not promise to not make mistakes. I never misinterpret something on purpose, which I'm sure you know. And I have not disrupted the flow of the discussions in any way. You however, by copying part of discussions for absolutely no reason, so that they appear twice, and by still refusing to indent properly, are constantly disrupting the discussions. However, I have no hope of you stopping that, so I won't ask you to. --Regebro 16:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for record…

Addition is quite clear I believe, imo the section is more then appropriate, if you would prefer a different one say so but I believe it should be brief and to the point. Have my apologies for such inappropriate reply, but your accusations of me reposting and disturbing the flow of thought in the moment in which I tried to summarize it and restore it did throw me of the track there… there is also this issue of repeating, since you keep repeating how I should state the case while case was constantly swimming in this little flow of thought we have here;). We had a few disagreements yesterday… let's leave them there? Lovelight 12:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Lovelight 16:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Whitehouse using Wikipedia for Propoganda

Check the Village Pump [history for just one example. I gotta go. --GenericClownTaunt 19:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Lies, bloody lies and conspiracy theories

I would appreciate it if you deleted Cplots sockpuppets lies about me (and I assume everybody else mentioned) from your talk-page. I don't particularily approve of poeple lying about my person, as you maybe can understand. --Regebro 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I don’t know why this sort of information tends to land on my talk page, I'm surely not asking for it… I would probably remove this myself if there weren't so much tempering with that edit… About that other point, I'm still expecting your apology because of lies you're deliberately spreading about me… as for your reputation, well, that certainly isn’t my problem… Lovelight 01:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It lands there because Cplot puts it there through his various sock-puppets. I sympathize with your situation, but I would still like you to remove it. --Regebro 11:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

come to think of it… …if nothing else, editors/administrators mentioned above are a part of single interest group… but I'd guess that more experienced wikipedians know about that far more then I do… I'm trying to stay focused, but there are these "loony reports" of snakes on planes and socket puppies and clowns and MONGO's… it would all be rather amusing and funny, if it weren’t so sad… (& true).Lovelight 01:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well since I was forced to look at this after all, I see there is long history of wikinonsense… good going there…

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025583.html

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/024230.html

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025921.html

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054949.html

Or go here: http://spectrum-fairness.blog.co.uk/ (tag "Wikipedia")…

I have no idea what you are talking about or why this in any way wuold have anything to do with the issue. Please remove the lies about me from your talk page. I know nothing about the other editors, but I am not a party of any interest group whatsoever. Please remove the lies about me from the talk page. This is the last request I will do. --Regebro 11:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Will you remove those lies you spitted on me at the talk page, and restore my valid edit requests? Think about it… Lovelight 11:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not spitted anything at you, much less lies. --Regebro 14:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your insults.

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. References: [5], [6] --Regebro 11:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Simple sorry will do… Lovelight 11:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that will do is that you stop. I don't care if you say your sorry or not, just don't do it again, OK? --Regebro 11:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not doing a thing; you brought that on yourself... once again, your reputation is not my concern… Lovelight 12:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I take this as a refusal to stop. I'm sorry to hear that. --Regebro 14:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Muchacho, one more time, I'm not doing anything to you, while you go as far as calling me "Deaf dumb and blind basketcase"… and/or conspiracy theorist… and/or POV pusher… I've never proposed single change that could (not even remotely) be related to such term… isn't there some sort of protection from this sort of abuse? Lovelight 14:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I have done of the above is called you a conspiracy pusher, as you are one of the people who claim the article is POV for not including more conspiracy stuff. I already said that I was sorry if you didn't like that wording. I have never called you any of the other stuff you accuse me of calling you. There, I now hope this misunderstanding is cleared up. --Regebro 15:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

note

If outside parties are interested in...what was that all about… they may check appropriate history [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], keep in mind that I'll leave Reg to have a final word here & there… Lovelight 16:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

addendum

Take this as a sample, it's related to that War on Terror section… as Mongo, or Golbez, or Tbeatty… User Regbro sees conspiracy in everything… so he called me "conspiracy pusher" because we discussed… well, the very same thing that another "conspiracy theorist", George Tenet repeated in his new book… of course, from my perspective I'd have to comment on that with: "What to heck is wrong with this fellow?" And since we deal with the morton's cruft here, I'd certainly feel insulted… I'd also say it's a bit unhealthy… and that's exactly why I've strived so hard not to be related to terms truther or conspiracy theorists… no matter how hard some folks are trying to stick the label and classify me in one of those groups (talking about current events here too)… if you take a closer look at this page you'll see that. imo this little cruft we are having here, is nothing but bad for us all.

Let me share another thought, look at that 911 article, why is there no people there? One would think that we'd have hundreds of editors debating there… fueling some real, some decent discussion, but no, all we have is a group of thugs who are constantly (well, at least since I'm here) pushing and directing everyone away. Move along, nothing to see here… as a result, one receives messages as this one. As a result we have this silly dialogues, we have few persons involved… at times it's extremely uncomfortable to be among those few editors, but I'm trying hard not to think about wider populace that might be reading through… if I'd think about that, I'd never post a word.

Finally, I'm looking back through the history… and I'm a bit worried, if you take a look at the note above you'll find some references that apparently lead nowhere. I'd like a clear and clean explanation why are the whole sections missing from 911 article archives? What am I missing? Where did they go, because I'd really like to see them retrieved… is this some sort of technical difficulty? Is this some sort of monumental cock-up? Is this the part of the policy? I'd really appreciate some answers, anyone? Lovelight 18:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you look in the archives for the talk page? You can find a list of all 28 past pages of talk on the talk page.--Dcooper 19:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Here you go: [12]. They were never missing.--Dcooper 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

oh, I see… you see, in climate as this I've acted as described above, saw the conspiracy where there is none. :) Apologies & thanks & regards… Lovelight 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please stop these personal attacks. They have become disruptive, and if you continue it will be necessary to temporarily block you from editing. If you have a problem with another user, take it to dispute resolution. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, you could have just ask me to cool of… this is second time you folks are treating with the block, while I clearly haven't done anything to deserve one, if I cannot answer to silly allegations on my talk page… just look at this mess... Lovelight 15:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have temporarily blocked you for disruptive personal attacks. Please do not promote or post links to that material again. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You have my slight bow and applause… Lovelight 18:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Escapade & ArbCom

I am not sure what you mean by "I'm honestly surprised by your escapade."? I thought we were on good terms and the black helicopters comment was not directed at you since you were not the one who posted the message I removed. I am not sure why you are taking such offense to anything. What is exactly wrong, or what did I do to offend you? My apologies whatever it may have been, unless its that I removed the sockpuppets attacks against me and their accusations. --NuclearZer0 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course that we are on good terms… it occurred to me that allegations about committee might be unfounded and that I should perhaps consider the whole process far more seriously, that’s all. As for your point, you've just noticed yourself how your comment might be misinterpreted… you know how I prefer when things are clear, and if that case has any due weight, I would try to avoid any misleading sentences. Of course that doesn’t mean that I think you used such flow deliberately… Apart from that, you did get me a block there, even if that wasn’t your intention;)… Well, I honestly hold no grudge with you, if you reconsider you're wording, I'll reconsider my. Lovelight 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I was being playfully sarcastic, as I thought you were when you posted the "Thank you" message on my talk page. My apologies if it was taken out of context, I didnt intend for you to get blocked, while I was annoyed because I didn't know what your issue was with me, I didnt think it was have deserved a block in retrospect. --NuclearZer0 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/September 11, 2001 Attacks. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

That link

You may want to leave PTR's version up. It pretty detailed and is a good middle ground, it keeps the site and the timeline and restricts it to that day to satisfy the complaints about it. If people want to surf around the rest of the stie they can do so on their own. Just some advice. --NuclearZer0 15:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You would go against your own arguments? Why? We already have "minute by minute timeline"… Lovelight 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

re: ArbCom Questions for Paul August

Hi Lovelight. I've answered your questions. Thanks for asking. Paul August ☎ 22:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

911 Conspiracy Theories/Alternative Theories

Why dont we focus on identifying individual points of objection at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Why_dont_the_Oppose_and_Agree_camps.3F instead of having long winded debates that cover 2 or 3 subjects The we we know everyones objections either way, we can work out a compromise on each point with a view to reaching a consensus. "Snorkel | Talk" 09:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

re: about hoaxes, conspiracies & paranoid times…

No problem, apology certainly accepted. :) I will admit that after the time I took in making my lost and found, that the comment seemed critical of it. I was honestly thinking of you when I made it. The reason I made that area, is so the footnotes would be visible, to help keep them and improve what is lost before a place could be found for it. In retrospect, I should have made a section in the talk page explaining my actions. Have you taken a look at the Waxman letter I referred to? That letter is critical of the report for omitting investigations into prior warnings, which would be appropriate for the article. The link I gave you makes the reliability of sources unquestionable, as it's on Rep. Waxman's .gov site. I haven't had much time for it, I've been spending most of my time defending Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proven conspiracies (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information Sharing Customer Outreach (ISCO) from deletion. The second link I mentioned is part of our govt's new infrastructure for sharing information between departments in the "war on terror" (I'm assuming your American, please correct me if otherwise). You know it's a funny thing, but a couple of hours after I made my vote for keep here yesterday, the article in question started undergoing major edits, mainly by two of the users who voted delete. To me this seems to indicate that the article is more worthy of editing rather than deletion, else they wouldn't waste time with it. Please, when you have time, go take a look at what is going on over there and who is behind what. It's quite revealing and informative. I know I'm being a little vague here, but you will know what I'm talking about after you take a good look. Anyway, thanks for talking to me, it made me feel better today. :)

Straw Poll: External timeline in 911 attacks article

Since you have been involved with the 911 attacks article in the past, you might be interested in voting in a straw poll on an external timeline currently used in the article. [13] . Thanks. Abe Froman 18:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Citation

You left a mildly mysterious message at my talk page. What do you mean by your message? Did I not cite something? I'm quite confused. I would appreciate it if you would explain further. Thanks! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

it may be helpful

Indeed it may, but it sounds regrettably patronising. Nothing was ever fixed about that template. Not its content and not its name. There is a section on its talk page to do with renaming it. You obviously have a strong opinion, and it would be useful, surely, to handle that there? Fiddle Faddle 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think wikipedia can be the most exciting and the most dispiriting virtual place. I hope you understand a couple of things about me and my edits here. The first is that I care only about the articles, not about the content. I hope that makes sense. The second is that I care about consensus, even if it goes against my own views, and, regrettably, even when I view it as illogical, even stupid. With regard to the various conspiracy theories and theory mongers regarding the WTC incident, I see the entire thing as WP:BALLS but believe passionately that a good article is abso;utely required that does not reflect my persoanl feelings Fiddle Faddle 22:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So you do care about the contest after all. You see, you keep refuting yourself… talking one way, acting another. Lovelight 10:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not snipe. If you want to be constructuve, then please be constructive. But I am wholly uninterested in personal comments Fiddle Faddle 10:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the note. In less than a month I have become fascinated with Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community.-JLSWiki 16:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism

No good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is vandalism. Please don't try to turn a normal disagreement into good versus evil. I think I mentioned this before, and thought you had agreed with me about it. Calling people's edits 'vandalism' in the edit summary is unnecessarily inflammatory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use the edit summary to editorialize. [14] Injecting politics is not going to make calm discussion any easier. Just narrowly describe your edit. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism accusations

Please do not accuse other editors of vandalism when referring to edits that stem from content disputes. [15] I'm sure you're aware of this but maybe another look at WP:CIVIL might come in handy. Good faith edits are never vandalism, ever. RxS 16:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you join related discussion and stop war editing about the disputed template. Lovelight 16:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rolling back someone's (inaccurate) accusation of vandalism is hardly edit warring. I would suggest however, that you take your own advice and stop all the reverting I see you doing and wait for the discussion to come to a conclusion one way or another. Editing is a lot more fun that way. RxS 16:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wish I could have such fun, but I'd had to be admin to revert often and without any explanation:(… as I've inaccurately pointed out:). Lovelight 17:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to drag this out but if you're implying I used my admin tools in rolling back these edits you are indeed inaccurate. RxS 17:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It was in no way related to your edits, I'm not sure why you felt that way. Lovelight 17:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick Question

I saw that you removed 911ct from [16] [17] several articles (Steven E. Jones and David Ray Griffin) for example, but added it to September 11, 2001 attacks [18]. Why does it not belong on articles about people working in the CT field, but does belong on an article that has nothign to do with CT? Seems strange....thanks. RxS 17:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you've followed discussion, you may have noticed that one of my first point(s) was that template should be applicable to the main 911 article. If we decide to stick it there, I'll shift my perspective. Lovelight 17:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My question was why (you think) 911ct belongs on a page that hardly mentions the theorys contained on the template and doesn't belong on pages that actively discusses them? RxS 23:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I assure you, I don't feel in such way at all, quite contrary. If you are wondering about those reversions, they were done in somewhat frantic state of mind. You see, I've kindly pointed that we are in the middle of the edit war and that we should restrain ourselves until we reach some sort of consensus. I've mentioned this on talk page(s) too, basically asking why the urge, why we cannot put the template on hold until disputes are resolved? However, editors involved felt the need to continue with… without addressing any of the points in discussion and that did throw me of the track, and I've started to act, well, a bit silly, I guess. Hope this explains my actions, and to be clear on things, of course, template should be placed wherever related/applicable. Lovelight 23:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm

Please don't do this [19]. Especially please do not start calling people clowns. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it was obvious violation, conveniently someone wrote a popular song about it, so it wasn't really name calling, it was pure sarcasm. Or should I just sit and watch how some folks are bending rules as they see fit? Lovelight 13:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand, just a caution. The whole 'clowns' thing has kind of been run into the ground lately. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, you know that I was reluctant to recognize such acrobatics in the first place. Lovelight 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to World Trade Center

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on World Trade Center. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. -- Upholder 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• It is considered bad form to remove warnings from your user page. Additionally, Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as you have on World Trade Center as it is also against policy. -- Upholder 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• You have removed several user warning templates from your user or user talk page. These warnings are not put on your talk page to annoy you; they were placed here because other editors have noticed an issue with your behaviour that may require improvement. They are a method of communication and user talk pages stand as a record of communication with you. If you do not believe the warning was valid or have a question about improving your behaviour you can respond here or visit the help desk. If your talk page is becoming long, you can archive it in accordance with the guidelines laid out here How to archive a talk page. Thank you.. -- Upholder 21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, no archives and no omissions, I understand and appreciate the tickets, but I don't agree with your assertions or unnecessary comments. Instead of drawing illustrations on my talk page (the one that is my, to behold and to do whatever I like with it? Or?) someone could address such actions as this one? You know I was once blocked because I've been insulted, while the offending editor got nothing but a friendly note. People are leaving because of such administration. Thanks. Lovelight 22:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • …its always the same people (and I'm not talking about Upholder here), on all 911 related articles, all the same people, enforcing their pov's… and where are the others? They are behind the lock, ridiculed as vandals, and trolls and all that… jazz. Lovelight 22:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

they'll hunt you like a pack of wargs

I love that saying:

"they'll hunt you like a pack of wargs"[20]

I have seen you around, you are a "9/11 conspiracy theorist" in unfriendly circles, a "seeker of truth" in friendly circles, aren't you?

If you actually are a "9/11 conspiracy theorist", I don't agree with your beliefs at all.

But you probably have seen me around attempting to defend your ability to express your views on certain pages, particuarly in AfDs. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

? I'm wikinoob basically, and I'm honestly not aware of any such circles (learning though), so if you allow I'll stay right where I am, and that is out of any circle, so to say. imo Nuke is doing the same thing, I've noticed that you (among others) are questioning this? But I don't know what's exactly in his (in wiki) past (and I certainly won't dig for whatever it is)… Anyway, it appears you slightly misinterpreted that massage you are reflecting on. It was just addendum to similar occasion which occurred few weeks ago, when Nuke was (as he is today) "literary" surrounded by the "pack of wargs". Both of these messages were left on his talk page as sign of support in difficult moments… as a matter of fact, if there wouldn’t be your questioning and Machiavellian remarks I'd probably be much "bolder" in support of such well-rounded editor. Its not healthy to apply doublethink on everything, it leads to unnecessary paranoia… have you noticed my note to the Morton yesterday, do you honestly think that it was anything else but a sheer sarcasm? You could have learned that if you were following my contributions… I'd probably communicate much more with different editors, but there is this strange climate, things are not as they appear, so I'm a bit careful, while I learn a bit more of this strange environment. Come to think of it, let me share another thought, look at my user page, it could be that a lot of people are focusing on word vengeance, thus missing the fact that person is masked. No gender, no race, no allegiance and no nation dear Travb, just ideas, and ideas are bulletproof:). Lovelight 15:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: 911ct invitation. Thanks but I will pass :( I really don't like to get into those realy high conflict pages. I don't think there was an demolition, and think the people who do are a little kooky, but I respect their views and think they should be able to post those views using sources. That seperates me from the wargs I guess. Nuclear has been very facinating to watch. Ask him about his evolution.

Of course your comments were sarcasm. Fair is the same way, so is Morton and Seabhcan.

I'd probably communicate much more with different editors, but there is this strange climate, things are not as they appear

yep, everyone is politically correct here, or they are punished, sometimes severly.

So if you ever step in shit, just warning: you can't actually say "I stepped in shit". Travb (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, have your own perspectives, just … Lovelight 02:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Missle Citation

There is a request for citation of Donald Rumsfeld stating a missle hit the Pentagon. The citation is [21] that is from the Defense Departments website. It should be included with a follow up sentence specifying something like "though some believe it was a misunderstanding of words, though that will need a citation as well. In the 9/11 article that is =) --NuclearZer0 11:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Myth of the Corporate Media

Hi. Saw your commments over at the 911ct template talk page, and read the link you provided. I think I'm beginning to understand the Truth Movement, and how it is that you arrive at the conclusions that you do, and I think it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the American media. If the link you provided is representative of the TM, and based upon my review of your websites, I think it is, then the problem is this notion of a controlled media -- whether controlled by some unnamed corporate behemoth, or the US Government. While certainly there are Government-led PR actions, and efforts by corporate entities to control the slant and flow of stories, this notion is taken too far when you interpolate from those actions that the entire media is "controlled." Nothing could be further from the truth. We live in a media culture where competition is keen, and the desire to out-do one another predominates. Every reporter is trying to out-do the other reporters, and the one that is able to come up with a unique story or reveal hidden truths is rewarded, not derided. That's what Pulitzers are for -- the guy who "got" the "story", not for withering panderers. A unique and compelling story is the golden ticket in journalism, especially one that reveals the corruption and hypocrisy of our own government. So rather than treating the mainstream media as your "corporate media" enemy, you should embrace them and feed them your best TM facts -- if there's a real story there, it will emerge, because it has some credibility and can stand on its own, without cheerleading from the 911TM cheer squad of Jones, Hoffman, etc. If no story emerges after an extended period of time, then don't blame the media, blame the absence of compelling facts. 5 years is a long time. None of the 911TM "facts" has caught fire. Is that because the facts aren't compelling, or because someone is trying to suppress the facts? Ask yourself: where is the evidence of suppression? Food for thought.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Those links (plural) were provided because of terminology, and terminology only, I don't care much about TM (unless you are referring to the TrackMania!?):P Not sure what to say about this "public enemy media"… However, if you ask good folks at BBC they might be willing to share some insights about suppression you have mentioned. Guess Lou Dobbs could do the same thing.., and whole bunch of other folks too… but it doesn’t really matter, since we are basically waiting for history to unfold, critical mass and all that. Hmmm, you did remind me of an excellent book, there is a quote there about this strange suppression you are pointing to, but its hardcopy, when I'll find time I'll look it up and drop it to your talk page. Just for fun of it... Of course, you could also read about life & work of George Orwell… but as I said, this is about terminology and the popular connotations of word conspiracy, nothing else there. Honestly. Lovelight 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Love Orwell (and Huxley for that matter). But 5 years, and no "EVIDENCE"? All smoke, mirrors, and Bigfoot tracks. If we can find out that there were no WMDs, we can find out that our government is culpable in 9/11. Never gonna happen my friend.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 02:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Huxley is cool, eating peyote and all that… but I love Sir Isaac Newton and Galileo Galilei.., or in other words, those buildings freefell and I'm afraid that there is no remedy for that. Lovelight 03:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds as if you really are a True Believer. Life is fascinating -- you find Faith in the strangest of places.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 19:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What's up Morton? Some sort of anxiety? & what exactly do you have in mind? Faith in science? Here brother, have a song. Lovelight 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

911CD

I wish I could tell you that you didn't waste your time but this was a common tactic as well. Now that you created yuor template as was reccomended to you. When you try to place it somewhere you will be told that its not as complete as the ct one and you should not put both on an article, that its a duplicate etc. Put it on the 9/11 conspiracy theory article where its best. And watch the reaction of the same people who told you to make it in the first place. --NuclearZer0 11:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved the template and added the events. Its now at template:911cd. I am preparing a political POV statement that I will be bringing to an RfC possibly this week. I will keep you updated on it. As for the template however, its just gonig to get removed by Tom Aude and the others on Mortons friends list. I think the best bet for me is to start a larger discussion on the suppression of "other viewpoint" for lack of better words. As for sources, you dont source a template, but you may want to look through the movies to make sure they so support Controlled Demolition, and not a different theory. --NuclearZer0 13:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD

I have nominated for deletion Template:911cd. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

No one will have to block you unless you violate the three-revert rule. And even if you do, I would not block you myself, but report you on the notice board. There's no need for it to come to that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You've been more than helpful (in your efforts to turn me into vandal); I'd suggest you file your report. Lovelight 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are determined to have a blaze of glory, you'll have to get someone else to light it. I don't doubt your good-faith; it's just an editing disagreement. Per [22], there is a javascript thing you can use if you need an enforced break. Why not just take a day or so editing something non-controversial that you enjoy? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Lovelight, please do not disrupt the 9/11 article to prove some kind of point, or for self-aggrandizement. This one is a real encyclopedia article, not some pop-culture triviality. Revert yourself and a block may still be avoided. Get consensus on the talk page for links you want to add. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Proving point? Self-aggrandizement? Real encyclopedic article!;) It's just a little contribution, well referenced, well sourced & well intended contribution. You simply cannot avoid everything, you cannot tuck everything away as if it doesn’t exist… Lovelight 03:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Got your wish Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Lovelight.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 03:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Lovelight 03:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you welcomed a 3RR block, you got it. --Golbez 03:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, that's a bummer. Lovelight 03:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Say, Golbez, when you find a minute… would you kindly explain that explanation? What exactly does the gaming of the system mean? For example and with regards to main 911 articles, would that be something like we (the deciders) choose to oppose any mention of anything (what we find) damaging to the official take of events? And we'll do it by any means necessary? Is it something like this? Is that a bit like with those templates we played with and which brought me over the (h)edge? How exactly can one person game the system? I'm honestly puzzled… Lovelight 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

He was referring to the fact that it is obvious that you were attempting to get yourself blocked. --Wildnox(talk) 20:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Then he should have written that, not the puzzling "game of the system" explanation. I do feel better now, thank you. Lovelight 08:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

ZeroFaults/NuclearUmpf

Dear God, what is wrong with you people? Where are these hearings held? I'd like to have a word too. Please leave a notice about whereabouts of discussion with regards to this case, either here or at my talkpage. Thanks. Lovelight 20:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no hearing, Zer0faults/Nuclearumpf was not on trial. I blocked him per, as I stated above, his explicit threat to disrupt the project through harassment. After blocking him, I posted a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indef_block_of_NuclearUmpf.2FZerofaults so there would be visibility. Again, please note that it isn't a trial or 'case', it's a straight forward block based on his own behavior. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't like it one bit, as far as I've seen, Nuclear was under wave after wave of unnecessary threats and had to sustain all sorts of incivilities, ridicule… pressure to be sure. If we are to work in the healthy environment there should be no double standards. Mongo cannot go on rampage without sanction, Arthur cannot have his little hegemony, Morton cannot go around insulting decent people. If we would all act like that we would be in a ZOO. Indefinite block's and waste of good editors who are forced into loosing temper? Not good. This needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed from the top of the pyramid. Sincerely disturbed. Lovelight 00:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with the block, I encourage you to edit the link I provided to the discussion on AN/I. If you feel I have operated improperly by extending his block to indefinite, you can find redress in the same location or make use of our WP:RFC facilities. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism accusations

Please do not accuse editors (myself) in good standing of vandalising articles. Thanks. RxS 05:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not engage in unfounded and meaningless edit war, thanks. Lovelight 05:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that you're removing valid references, there is nothing even close to consensus for these changes. If you want to add material please do not remove valid content in the process, thanks. RxS 05:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Same goes for you, so where are we… just leave it be, no pictures, no colors, just facts, if you please. Lovelight 05:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Same goes for me what??? You removed valid content and I fixed it, no matter how you want to spin it. RxS 05:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a valid content, and you remove it, ok. And I'm not sure why you feel that my note was intended at you, since it wasn’t. Lovelight 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my mistake but we're the only ones talking in this section so it was only natural that I assumed you were talking to me. The problem is, in the same edit that you added material, you also removed valid content and that's what I was fixing. It's really not my job to sort through your edits and fix them piecemeal. RxS 05:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I ask for your pardon and I'm sorry for misunderstanding, there was a # of editors there who are regularly reverting without being questioned or without providing arguments, to my knowledge you are not such editor. Peace. Lovelight 05:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR (2)

You should watch the reverts, it looks like you're over your limit. I'm not going to block/report but maybe it's time to take a breath? You are editing outside of consensus, and removing valid content. And no matter how strongly you feel about it, an admin (not I) is going to come along and see your reverts tonight and at least consider a block....that helps no one. RxS 05:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, I've made some valid contributions to that article, and there is no reason whatsoever to remove those, if impartial administrator comes along he will see what's going on, if not, I'll be blocked, won't be the first time that double standards are exercised, and I don't care much about all that anyway. I'm certain you are aware that I'm extremely patient with all this, thanks for the warning and all that. Lovelight 05:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 1 week

You have been blocked for 1 week for a 3RR violation on Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. To answer your comments above, from my perspective, it doesn't matter why you performed the reverts since you were not removing what we would consider vandalism. We don't choose sides or say that some edits are "valid" over others. 5 reverts in a 4 hour period is 5 reverts. Period. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks! Lovelight 14:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I shortened the block to 72 hours (total). But please please discuss rather than revert. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

ok, thanks, I'm still blocked (72 +, that is)… but the thought counts too!:) Lovelight 12:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

culpability

about thugz & petty criminals Lovelight 09:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

9/11 at Politics.Wikia.Com

I thought you might be interested in the 9/11 Truth Movement page.

Unhelpful edits

Lovelight, please refrain from making unrelated comments on the September 11, 2001 attacks talk page. The purpose of the talk page is to provide constructive input and discussion in order to improve the article. You are encouraged to point out errors, but not to add personal intuition, superstitious nonsense or uninformed argument. This edit doesn't even make sense. Peter Grey 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a research platform for you to conduct experiments. Don't edit disruptively to make a point.[23] Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, there are 27 pages of disputed history which clearly show that we have a core breach after core breach… i don't see how it is acceptable to avoid, redirect, falsify and do all those nasty things we do on daily basis… you have been here since ever, and I honestly believe that you are well aware of the issue… You've certainly earned my respect… however, your unwillingness to acknowledge the actuality and gravity of situation is disturbing, to say the least. Lovelight 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

All the reliable sources show that Al-Qaeda terrorists blew up the World Trade Center. The "situation," the "core breach" that is causing you such distress, is that you want very much to say something else; something that is not supported by any reliable sources. As a human, I'm sympathetic to your distress. As someone who is tired of your constant disruption when you cannot get your way, I do not care. You can go edit articles on some unrelated topic you know something about, or get a blog, or talk in the cafe to whoever wants to listen. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, the facts are well known, all we have to do is to recognize… we have Norman Mineta's testimony, we know of war games, we know what Cheney did, we know what Mark Dayton stated of omission, we have the Richard Clark's memo, we know of Rice's criminal neglect of which Cofer Black stated: ""The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head."; we know of outrageous 911/Iraq link for which Rum just couldn't wait for, we know that building 7 was a "building inside the building" reinforced to sustain all hell broke loose (seek Times article on that one)… We know of "Uncle Sam's Lucky Finds" (that one's from Guardian, from the times when Guardian was unlimited), we know of Strategy of Tension, we are minding the gap here in Europa, we are aware of the Gladio here in Europa, we hunted that Boeing, we've seen the timing of transatlantic plot… could go on an on for we know it all… the world will not fall in freefall… the uniformity is Party, Party is uniformity… it's silly, it's unsustainable economically and otherwise… The new world order is not acceptable; State Sponsored Terrorism is not acceptable, mass murder for self gain is not acceptable…

There, some blistering blabbering, but I've decided to leave this place for a while… and there should be some sort of note about taking a vacation… after all.

PS

So you see Tom, as someone who is tired of your constant disruption when you cannot get your way, I do not care. So please don't preach, nor teach. I'll leave you for a while now, or at least that mockery of liberty which you call 911 article. As far as I'm concerned wikipedia is nothing but a blog when it comes to serious issues, so please, do continue to spread your little conspiracy, to whoever is willing to listen (and to whomever does care). Lovelight 22:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

thought: To be clear on things I do like this project, and if 911 article is a failure, that doesn’t mean that wikipedia is failure. Not at all. Lovelight 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The only mockery here are your endless attempts to add unsubstantiated conjecture to what is otherwise a solid article.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 20:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

…of all the unearthly vandals it had to be you morton… and while I'm on vacation… no time for all this blabber and smoke now… have you signed that petition already? Lovelight 13:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR (3)

See, I'll report anyone. (And note the result.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Kucinich

I'm sorry, but what exactly do 9/11 conspiracy theories have to do with the Dennis Kucinich article? --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 02:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I did look it up on Google before removing the tag. I'm sorry but I just don't see how Kucinich investigating a "narrow portion" of the incident (specifically in regard to discrepancies in the public record) makes him a proponent or supporter of alternative 9/11 theories. That's a huge leap, and the giant alt 9/11 theories box on the page will likely seem a little bewildering to visitors, especially given that his investigation pledge isn't mentioned anywhere in the article.

I won't revert you again, of course, but I'm going to bring it up on the article talk page. Take care, --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 02:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - it's a great vid. I still think calling him a supporter/proponent of the theories is not justified because he never says that he believes in an alternative 9/11 theory - his point in doing this genuinely seems to be a response to his constituents' concerns: "I respect the concerns that people have about whether they've been told the truth or not" and "I know that unless you address that lack of trust, you're not going to be able to successfully lead a nation" are good illustrations of this. And yes, maybe he's just "weasel wording" to avoid committing possible career suicide, but either way, it's not up to me to decide, which is why I put it on the talk page for a go-round.

For what it's worth, btw, I'm a fan of Kucinich and I applaud his investigation into the subject, because I'm not buying everything the gov't says either (and I'm in the military, too, so take that as you will ;)); I'm just careful about POV and interpretation here. I still think adding the template is a stretch, but if it stays (and even if it doesn't), Kucinich's investigation and position should be included in the article. Thanks again! --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 03:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR (4)

I've added you to the Administrators' noticeboard/3RR [24], you must have 10 reverts today. RxS 05:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you have to be so mean, and why have you decided to state your concern after getting me blocked? Why?! Lovelight 06:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that with the amount of edit warring you were doing I thought it would be obvious that it was coming...and in any case, you weren't blocked when I started leaving this message. I maybe should have said something earlier but you've been down this road too many times for it to come as any shock. Look at this talk page, and your block log...it almost seems like you're doing this on purpose. Anyway, I don't mean to be mean but on the other hand 3RR doesn't make a lot of room for "I'm right about this so I can revert as much as I want" I don't really know what to say....RxS 06:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is what you've done to it… vandals ravaging on it, insults, accusations, unnecessary warnings… the history speaks for itself… I've repeatedly asked you to state your concerns, yet you choose to revert without any valid explanation… how is that not mean, how doest the 3rr apply here? What am I doing wrong? What?! Have a nice week. Lovelight 06:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer 06:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What history? History of patience? History of abuse? What history are you talking about? Instead of arguments, I get a block? Thanks. Lovelight 06:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[25]; [26];[27];[28];[29];[30]; here, for your amusement. Lovelight 07:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A history of edit warring, actually, is what I was referring to. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well, it was such month, and if you would know the background of those three cases, you wouldn’t be so eager to punish me so vigorously and so viciously. I've snapped, other good editors snapped, swore and then departed… you know the state of the articles I'm working on, you know about "usual editors" which enforce status quo? Believe me, after few months, one does have a tendency to snap! That said, I'm considering these "violations" to be as speeding tickets, fair warnings, not criminal records. Perhaps I'm wrong? Thanks anyway. Lovelight 06:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, blocks are a bit more like speeding tickets than anything, if we were to use such an analogy (and even then they don't exactly fit). Still, I would advise caution, more than one person has lost a license after too many of those.

It does seem you're stressing quite a bit over this. I imagine that editing on any subjects involving the 9/11 theories is highly contentious, and it might be best to take a break anyway. Enjoy it, and hopefully when you come back you'll be in better shape to keep your cool. Also, a bit of recommended reading in the meantime. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

ocean of nonsense

Keep with what Tom? We were in the middle of discussion, yet some folks think reverting without explanation or without sharing a single argument is ok? What does one have to do to remedy that, become an admin? It's simply not right… and what's with these lengthy punishments? I'll just add a little notch, bam! Eh, officers, officers warning would suffice, no need to exercise excessive force… I'm no vandal, just a concerned citizen here! Tell you what, if you folks showed itsy, bitsy sign of goodwill to participate in discussion instead of reverting with fuzzy comments, I'd certainly restrain myself from such speeding… heck, we all know each other for sometime now… That mockery over there continues, and I've patiently waited for months, just to see how exactly will that particular template grow? Well, I understand that whole lot of you prefer a status quo, but enough is enough… no need for two similar templates, there is no need for libel in wikipedia… do you understand that we cannot have prominent user pages about tin foil hat's and then put those same hat's on decent people? Do you, fellow wikipedians understand that? This sort of crap is unacceptable. We need to carry our standards. We are talking about some really ridiculous POV here… and Peter if you are aware of the libel (POV), why do you support that template? Why?! And where to heck are fiddle faddle and Arthur? Talking about their mess… Lovelight 23:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you keep violating 3rr the blocks will get longer. I think you know this. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly wouldn’t know about "usual practice", guess that each case should be taken individually and with respect to the intentions of the involved editors? Or? Lovelight 03:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Lovelight, assume good faith has its limits. Insisting that others justify undoing your damage is rank hypocrisy; you don't seem to believe that the rules that apply to other editors apply to you, and quite simply you are mistaken. You have clearly demonstrated both a lack of expertise in the subject matter of September 11, 2001 attacks, and a willingness to disrupt Wikipedia with frivolous or erroneous edits. Your lack of good faith is no longer in question. Please find a more constructive way to contribute. Peter Grey 18:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you for that insult Peter, I'm sorry if you feel that way and i hold no grudge… as for your reasoning, if you would like to discuss some "higher perspectives", do so…

Peter:

Source is clear, hypothesis is part of the context… you simply don't won't to recognize the issue… you're speaking about "things related or not". Let's try and simplify this… Give me one good reason why the word hypothesis (clearly stated at the source) must be omitted from our construct. One. Please. Lovelight 19:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

You are in violation of WP:3RR on September 11, 2001 attacks. Weregerbil 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Werge. Hope everything's well, thanks for this warning (at least I hoped that's what it was;), I've restrained afterwards… and I'm definitely learning about the rule… ah, remember good ol' times, remember whatcyaagonnadoabouit? Good thing we haven’t had another terrorist attack since then, right? Regards. Lovelight 17:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Lovelight)

Hello, Lovelight. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lovelight, where you may want to participate.-- Golbez 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Once upon a time I've asked you politely, if you think that your opinion is higher than mine? Do you remember what you answered… it is in history you know? You have never apologized for that one… I've experienced a lot of insults while here, but that one, that one was king of the hill, so to say… I'm afraid that I'll leave that territory defenseless… at least for now… Lovelight 16:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For example, this last edit that stuffofinterest dropped at that RfC, let me remind you, again, when I've contributed to that War on Terror section there was huge, hugely unreasonable opposition (you’ve said you’re involved so I'll guess you know about that one?). Had to answer to concerns of many editors, and i did it, in the end contribution was accepted and its still there… as result 9/11 article (and some other articles) were improved. I've never, ever proposed single change without showing good faith, patience and a will for discussion. I've never proposed anything that can (even vaguely) be related to term conspiracy… nope, still not in the mood… we're spending so much time discussing that there is no time for decent edits, but such are the rules… Lovelight 17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See, say, these editors that are resolving long-lasting speculations, contributing with factually accurate and well referenced edits, these editors are… expandable? This whole effort is extremely time consuming, certainly frustrating at moments (as this one), but i actually believe it’s a worthy goal. I'm not about to convince and/or impose opinions on anyone, I'm not about to share my expertise with anyone… opinions are opinions, comments are comments, arguments are arguments, but facts… facts are facts. You'd like to see wikipedia referenced by students? I know I would. No matter what’s your perspective on this, you may easily verify that my (actual) contributions (for which I've fought with persistent consistency as well as with enormous amounts of patience), rare and insignificant as they may seem are valid, informative… encyclopedic contributions. To be honest this is little uncomfortable, but history is there and although in a poor mood, I'd appreciate if you take a look at it… how about an essay about all the things that were on my mind while I've encountered one great mystery after another… mongos, boilerplates, snakes on plane!? Encyclopedia of wonders! Not in the mood though… eh, our first encounters, might seem silly from current perspective, but that was around last years memorial, Lou Dobbs spoke about it (as in mainstream!), there was this tension in the air… did you know that we used to have some government warning at that main 911 article? Would someone have a sample? Lovelight 20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Golbez, why don't you try to find another revision to prove your point, this one suggests I've wrote that whole thingy there (not just that general comment at the bottom). If I can recall it correctly it was actually another of those cases where you've decided to trim the talk page from "unnecessary" comments? You seem to do that quite often, it's poor practice if you ask me… especially if we talk about newcomers, potential contributors and all that… Lovelight 08:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

After closer inspection that RfC is poorly build… "It's time we stopped having to wade around his changes that are not and will not get in to the article."?!; "Person, who can add nothing?"??!; "changes which are reverted by the wider community"???! Nobel prize winner's commenting?!!! I'm extremely flattered by these series of insults… so what do I do now? Report a personal attack? Extend my resignation? Call for help? Ask for decency? Roll on the floor laughing? I'd say it's good time for some bedtime… Lovelight 08:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lovelight, as was posted on the RfC talk page, if you care to compose a formal response I or another editor will be happy to post it in the RfC response area. If you are convinced you have been wronged, then here is your chance to lay it out in a clear, organized manner for discussion. Please label any such response as so being that you posted quite a bit here on various points and it will need to be clear to any editor which text to take to the RfC page. Thank you. --StuffOfInterest 11:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's only formal response I'll make.

User Golbez's personal attacks, lies and outrageous insults formulated at this RfC are not acceptable, I demand apology! Lovelight 18:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

request denied --Golbez 18:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, you better enlist those forces, cause I'm not going anywhere, I'll drag this shit of yours straight to arbcom, and I'll make damn sure that every single crap you've boys said and done comes to light. Its disgusting to even think about all that, it was stupid motion from your side, my history is clear and I'll make damn sure you realize that. Lovelight 18:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your response has been posted. --StuffOfInterest 19:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I do believe you should be allowed to respond to your RFC. If you would like to make a statement on this page, I will post it on your behalf. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently (patiently) waiting for response to that unblock request, however, I've already responded to the statement of dispute, see above (feel free to carry, or perhaps interlink those). To clarify, what's important is that user who initiated request repeatedly refused to share a single argument, his course of action were reverts on the way to this RfC, which will put me against very uncomfortable although very familiar odds. I'm not sure how to proceed at this moment, it could be that I'll simply leave, it could be that we'll end up with arbcom, where there is higher hope to meet some impartial administrators who will take all this seriously… Apart from that, if you wonder why I'm not in the mood to engage with the clear statement, take a look at these Secondary Explosions. Drop in the sea there, and I'm honestly tired of exchanging arguments for insults. There is a long history behind all this, so I'll wait for that judgment first. Well, thank you for your kind proposal. Lovelight 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well...I certainly will tell you, if you keep going the way you're going, your odds at ArbCom are slim to none. If you would like to get things turned around, I would advise you consider stopping the edit warring and other problem behavior. "I'm frustrated by other editors" is not a valid excuse. If you think there are other problems as well, use dispute resolution. Get someone to mediate. Do accept that the article probably won't turn out exactly how you'd like to see it if you were writing it yourself-you're not writing it yourself. If you're willing to engage in discussion and not edit war, your positions will be taken into account. If you keep on with the edit warring and refuse to stop, you're going to wind up banned. Try taking a good look, and writing a response for that RFC that really addresses the concerns brought up. Not just calls them wrong or engages in conspiracy theory, but really one that looks at what's going on! If you can do that, you just might be surprised what you'll find. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, at the moment I'm inclined towards arbcom, perhaps it's time for that… if nothing else, I can try to reverse this distorted image you seem to have about my contributions. I'm carefully weighing my chances as we type, as well as assessing the collateral damage of such course. As for your statement I know you've done it with good intentions, but any impartial editor can easily verify that this accusation of edit warring and/or unwillingness to exchange arguments is utterly unfounded, it's vice versa, to say the least. I'm not sure if you’re aware, but you don't even have to leave this page to verify that. I've endured enough unfounded blocks [31];[32], I've experienced strangest of the standards, and had my share of insults, perhaps its time… time to share my patience, my good faith and my efforts with some wider community. Such unnecessary turn of events… Lovelight 01:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sincere question, is this unblock request even considered? Perhaps I've violated some protocols, since I've posted a couple? Lovelight 02:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The unblock will be considered. As I've commented in the RFCs in question, and have offered to help you as well, it would not be appropriate for me to make the decision this time around. Someone will, though. You could also contact the admin who blocked you by email, and offer to voluntarily restrict yourself to editing only the RFC and this talk page for the remainder of the two-week span. No one would necessarily have to unblock you in that case, but such requests are sometimes considered. (Of course, it goes without saying that should you violate such a voluntary probation, the block would be immediately reset, so that's a bad idea if you don't think you really can restrain yourself.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, thanks again, just wanted to check if there are some strict rules, since I've obviously failed to follow instructions… I'll stay with what's stated in the request; no need for hurry... there was never need for hurry… tell you what, should have listened to that kind advice of yours, you may be certain that I'll recognize that "stop light" in future. Lovelight 03:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How to contribute to 9/11 article in 7 easy steps

If outside parties are interested, here is a quick reconstruction of discussions one has to endure to contribute to 9/11 article with factually accurate information.

Step1 - release the breeze

Step2 - prepare for most unusual distractions

Step3 - ignite the decent discussion, seek the arguments, restate the case

Step4 - every experience point counts, if you experience paranoid denial, you'll level up!

Step5 - always examine each and every perspective, always stick to the facts.

Step6 - be prepared to see same things over and over again, be prepared to see your fellow wikipedians turned away, ridiculed, decimated…

Step7 - at this point you may experience lack of patience, and you may be utterly fed up with lack of arguments and number of insults you're receiving… choice is… get out of these wiki walls and try to penetrate from outside, bow to the crap, stay and make a valid contribution to improve this project.

Needless to say, very few editors are willing to go through this remarkable process… hmm, still not in the mood though… do say, do you find this to be normal (academic?!) work environment? What sort of replies and what sort of conduct are you expecting? I've stated before, I'm not interested in conspiracies of truth-seeking, just verifiable facts. I'd appreciate if you folks would take that statement seriously. I'd appreciate if we could cite our sources in orderly fashion, correctly, properly. We're really fracked up if we are not allowed to do that. I'll leave if that is the case… Well, think-thank it if you have to… I'm in such a poor mood, so tired of repeating what we all know. Lovelight 04:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from the above, User:Lovelight should not be unblocked. --Tbeatty 04:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

not sure what's on your mind? If you think that this is not a proper place to share my concerns about our common history, then I'll (re)move this, just say so… it's moderate response you know? Lovelight 05:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You may share anything you like. I simply think you should remain blocked for the full 2 weeks since we are so close to your last 1 week block for exactly the same thing. I think if you continue with this level of disruption, a community ban might be the next remedy. --Tbeatty 05:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you did say you would start listening. I think now would be a very good time to do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes (Tbeatty) I'm aware of your opinion, just wondering why would you point above and make such statement? You know, we'll need to clarify and define what exactly this thing is? This thing for which I'm being repeatedly blocked could easily come down to the sheer lack of decent arguments… I'm illustrating this whole day/night long… might be wrong though. That said, I'm really not sure about this 3rr rule, how strict it is, is it predetermined? Is every case properly evaluated? Should reverts made with good faith be considered as violation. Is reverting without valid argument/summary/explanation and or will for discussion equally unacceptable??? I'm not sure about this rule, however, if it's universally accepted, lets say as traffic lights are, then I've failed to recognize that… if this rule is some sort of synonym for vandalism (as it appears to be), I've failed to recognize that. Seraphimblade, I've stated that I'll obey these "strict rules", I'm always listening you know? I've illustrated that, clearly, look above↑. Lovelight 05:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you should remain blocked with an Rfc now filed regarding your behavior...however, I fail to see how linking to anything Cplot posted is helpful to your case.--MONGO 06:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you have an outside view on this, but I'll take it;)… I've kept from mentioning anyone while taking those steps since it's not about other editors… The only purpose of that ladder is to show that I'm clearly capable of restrain and always willing to discuss things. This is about valid contribution, you, and others as well, "resisted" to that edit without any decent argument, we've spend months there… beating around the shrub, so to say. You know, I'm not especially happy that it had to be related to that particular topic… it was purely logical exercise, since that section was a real eye poker… since there was this clear gap there… well, it's all documented in history and no need to repeat all that. Back to your point, I have no idea who is (was?) user CPlot (judging by your reaction you consider him either vandal or troll or conspiracy theorist?), the comment to that link starts as: "be prepared to see same things over and over again." It serves to illustrate that we have constant (and numerous, pick another one, npov related) disputes, it serves to illustrate that we, all together there, are in constant failure to reach consensus, it shows that we need to do better and assume some good faith. It shows that we need to bridge this unhealthy (and unnatural)… hmm, I'm begging to sound melodramatic… Hope this answers your concerns… Lovelight 07:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Cplot created hundreds of socks attacking more Wikipedians than any other troll I can think of. You've been argue against and sometimes your comments have been supported, but your blocks have been because you have been edit warring and have repeatedly violated the 3RR policy. It's that simple.--MONGO 16:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, the mistake is clear; it always has been… wikipedia shouldn't block editors for factually accurate contributions. I don't think that proper citing of a source should result with the block, or that 3RR is applicable in such cases… especially so if there is no argument whatsoever provided by the vandals on other side. That last block can be doubtful, but this case, this case is crystal clear. I've asked for administrative help! (without any sarcasm) & protection, think that all said and done here in last few weeks, months… shows why I've choose that particular term. Well, after good night sleep, it still looks the same, and it appears to me I'm not the one who's drowning. Not sure if I still have desire or good will to contribute here (got to get rid of this bad mood I'm experiencing lately), well, it appears that this account has run its course and can serve one last purpose. 9/11 ArbCom. I'll use time given to get acquainted with formalities of that process. Regards. Lovelight 18:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your 'factually accurate contributions' are obviously not universally accepted as such and are frequently reverted. Additions ot articles are made through consensus not your single view of what is factually accurate. Continuing to revert and edit warring because you think you are in the right is unhelpful. --Tbeatty 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cut the crap, you don't need to have a consensus to cite a source. Do you understand that? Are you aware of my patience and our discussions, i gave you folks open hands, I've stated clearly, construct that sentence as you wish as long as it's in peace with the source. This is not some milli vanilli article, there is no room for interpretations. We are working on some serious and seriously disturbing issues and that is a fact, and I've exercised my patience long enough. Do you think I'm happy with where this is going? I've been thinking about collateral damage to this project for hours, perhaps you folks should have done the same before you decided to go on this witch-hunt… You are well aware of our common history, you are well aware of all the fodder which will surface. I've never asked for this and I'm no Nuclear, I'm an independent editor with clear history and I deal with the facts. You'll have your chance to prove me wrong on that one.

That said, I've asked repeatedly & I'll ask again:

Give me one good reason why the word hypothesis (clearly stated at the reputable source, actually only descriptor of the source) must be omitted from our construct. One. Please. Lovelight 19:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested community sanction

Your personal attacks have now become intolerable and I have requested the community to examine whther indefinite or precise actions needs to be taken against your editing privledges. Here is my statement. If you wish to make a statement to the board, please post it here and I'll be glad to submit it for review there. Thanks.--MONGO 19:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, you better enlist those forces… Lovelight 19:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey mongo, since the call for my excommunication is still open, could you kindly address some of my concerns? While I'm not about to comment on civility or SPA, I'll sincerely appreciate clarification of this statement:

"trying to add oftentimes ridiculiously silly conspiracy theory misinformation"

Would you kindly share some diff's or topics so that everyone could see what you're talking about? What's on your mind Mongo? If you would be so kind… it would be decent to substantiate such accusation, please do so. Many thanks. Lovelight 05:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How about it mongo, how about presenting some of my "oftentimes ridiculiously silly conspiracy theory misinformation(s)"? Lovelight 16:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what mongo, I wish I could get to know that other mongo, the one that is experienced by other editors, editors uninvolved in these grave issues… instead of dear Mr. Jekyll I have to talk to vile Mr. Hyde? Why? Please, answer my questions, point to these theories you're talking about? Will you??? Lovelight 17:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's my statement, if you would be so kind:

Please note that noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort. Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution. Lovelight 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

another statement

Well Tony, you are wrong, have you visited related talk page, have you checked related history, are you aware of the issue(s) here or did you just took a look at my "representative" talk space? Please, if you are to endorse this, then at least find some good will and time to go through the history which led to this point. Thanks. Lovelight 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, StuffOfInterest, could you scrap that comment (reply to Tony) and expand my statement like this, sorry to bother you, but I'm a bit defenseless at the moment. :)

Please note also that this noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort. Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution. Please check related history I'm afraid my talk space is not "representative", at least, if you don't take a closer look. I'd appreciate, if you would find some time and good will to check the facts. Thanks. Lovelight 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. --StuffOfInterest 21:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Say, you fellows are really desperate? Why such cheap shot? How exactly can I disrupt the wikipedia if I'm blocked, and why don't you folks let me endure my block in peace? What's this? Torture? I've accepted my penance (thought about another call for help though;), but you boys just couldn’t wait? And I thought you would be able to draw your (s)words as virtuous and honorable men! Lovelight 21:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, during your time blocked, you've still been defending your edit warring on the grounds that you're "right", and the other side is "wrong". That scenario just never ends well. You've also been making personal attacks, as noted below. In effect, rather than addressing the problem behavior and concerns, you've continued to defend it and given no indication you intend to stop it, or that you've even really considered the concerns expressed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you of the reason we are here (third service).

Give me one good reason why the word hypothesis (clearly stated at the reputable source, actually only descriptor of the source) must be omitted from our construct. One. Please, state your concerns.

Not everyone understands the meaning of 'hypothesis' taken out of context. Peter Grey 16:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Source is clear, hypothesis is part of the context… you simply don't won't to recognize the issue… you're speaking about "things related or not"... What is wrong with citing the source properly Peter? Why wouldn't we quote these professionals? What did Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator said of 7 World Trade Center? He said: "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors”; he added "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7." So what to heck are you talking about Peter? Your professionals are recognizing and questioning their own hypothesis but we shouldn’t? Why Peter? Because of your POV? Lovelight 16:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What is things related or not supposed to mean? Don't you think at this point you should at least make some pretense of making sense or staying on topic? If you are unable, or unwilling, to understand the subject matter, that's unfortunate, but Wikipedia is not here to be your personal tutor or your therapist. Peter Grey 17:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that your are deliberately feigning ignorance, persistently… you are clouding the issues, I'm saying let's cite the source, you're talking about professional hypothesis? And then you come here to talk about therapy? How cool is that? Lovelight 17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you see that? I'm not saying I'm right and someone's wrong, I'm saying, let's cite the source! Outrageous as it may sound! Say, why am i here? In the middle of this strange campaign… as for this statement that I'm still defending blah, blah… how can you write such stuff if everything is documented right here? Seraphim, you've blocked me before and you've endorsed this block, I appreciate your efforts, but please, don't overdo yourself. You see I've fought this judgment, it took me a while to formulate the request properly but I've put it in bold, today. That said, I've accepted the verdict (still think it's not just, of course). And Thomas, to address your concerns, I'm perfectly capable to discuss this seriously, but I'd like to be free to do so. Lovelight 21:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks please

Dear Lovelight,

A request to protect your Talk Page has been filed at WP:RFPP due to your recent breach of No personal attacks, like you did here. This is completely unnaceptable. The only reason why it's not being protected right now is, because you're being subject of a debate at Community sanction noticeboard#Lovelight and Requests for comment/Lovelight. Since this page is your only way to respond to the concerns raised by other editors, I urge you not to abuse it by resorting to name calling, and to refrain from any sort of personal attacks. Failure to comply with this simple request will unfortunately result in immediate protection of this page, effectively cutting off any chance to express yourself until your block has expired. Regards, Phaedriel - 21:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, my sincere and deepest apologies to community, I'll certainly restrain from such comments, looking back it could easily be the first (and last) of such kind. I'm very disturbed these last few days… but that doesn’t justify any of that… So, Golbez, please accept my apology, it was utterly inappropriate and I'll remove the comment immediately. As for that request, it still stands.

This feud with Golbez deserves some perspective…. As an established editor, I don't think that user Golbez should share such thoughts with newcomers. We are all equal here, as I've understand it? Are we? Do you think that new editor knows how to file all these reports (please, remember to sign your comments)? I'd say that his RfC, as formulated, is extremely insulting and derogatory if not malicious, i honestly think that such approach is completely inappropriate. Lovelight 22:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Derogatory? Malicious? I don't know about that. Factual? Absolutely. You haven't even attempted to challenge a single one of the facts expressed, you've just been ranting.

Also, thank you Phaedriel for pointing that out, I had missed that diff.

As for your apology, accepted. --Golbez 23:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You've missed this one too:

After closer inspection that RfC is poorly build… "It's time we stopped having to wade around his changes that are not and will not get in to the article."?!; "Person, who can add nothing?"??!; "changes which are reverted by the wider community"???! Nobel prize winner's commenting?!!! I'm extremely flattered by these series of insults… so what do I do now? Report a personal attack? Extend my resignation? Call for help? Ask for decency? Roll on the floor laughing? I'd say it's good time for some bedtime…

1. as illustrated above my changes do end up in article, but there is this huge effort behind it (see those seven steps).
2. person who can add nothing? Now, that's a pure insult there…
3. Wider community? Nobody but me and you folks there (everyone's gone), only member of wider community I've seen recently is Phaedriel (thanks again!).

All your statements are false, if you wonder why, read these last edits (since yesterday). If you would like a proper response, let me out, or leave me be, until this block expiry. Lovelight 00:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

2 is irrelevant, since I was specifically complaining about your attempts to make additions to the 9/11 article. The sentence previous, I said: "I cannot find one change he has made to the main article". So perhaps you could respond to that instead of bringing up something wholly irrelevant? As for wider community, a lot of people watch RfC. And a lot more apparently watch the Community Sanction Noticeboard. As for someone complaining about a "poorly build" RFC and "prize winner's", maybe you should watch your own typing when impugning the intelligence of others. I expect better from someone with a "classical education". --Golbez 00:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Classical Education? Are you speaking about one of the signatories? I've never said I'm essjay have i? I'll restrain from further comments on that topic. But I'll provide some references to address your concerns (again, because you are to lazy to read;), give me a minute… Lovelight 00:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"My dear Goblez, I am a person of classical education, I find your logic poor and dim…" --Golbez 01:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That was said and done in the middle of fiery discussion and it's very old, why don't you throw a reference so that we can see the context? How about this one: and it was pathetic how he responded, but cute in the way that an abused puppy keeps running back. *shrug*… it is as fresh as fresh salad. What sort of response are you expecting? You cannot slap around & run amok expecting that you wouldn’t be slapped back. Lovelight 01:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

& typing? I'm relaxed on that one, I'm usually aware of the mistakes... and sometime it's just this (naughty, naughty) msword thingy… anyway, when I'm constantly buzzin' Peter usually helps (a lot, thanks)… English is simply not my primary lingo… why are you pointing at that anyway? Such blasé argument, right? U should check user Fiddle Faddle, he does the most amusing typos on wiki, and I mean that in a good way and sincerely:)… Listen, there is this nice example of my edit that improved that article, I've already presented the torment I had to endure to reach consensus in that case. I'll stick to that example, it's very illustrative... you may find it here. That proposal did pass Golbez, it's in the article. Take a look. Lovelight 00:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So you see, your RfC is bogus (& derogatory & mean…). Lovelight 01:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC Mailbox

Could someone post a response here, please.

Suspected pov pushers? You've should have wrote - study in how not to treat suspected newcomers, newbies, rookies… pick your choice. Lovelight 22:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

comment:

Citing reputable and well established sources is not pov pushing, not by any definition… I'm not happy that I'm in prison because of that, honestly. Here’s the reference, so you may easily see what's behind all this smoke… Lovelight 22:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Related discussions:

[33];[34]

Say, why exactly is this edit so troublesome? I'd consider it common knowledge. I'm sincerely puzzled by all this… and I'm trying to find a perspective which would explain this strange experience… Strangely strange, do you actually think this edit is so significant? That it will change anything? Lovelight 02:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate some input outside my usual circle. Anyone? Please. Lovelight

Hi Lovelight, I certainly don't think I'm part of your usual circle, so I hope you won't mind my commenting. While I sympathise with some of the frustration you have had trying to edit 9/11-related articles, you may need to back away from this a bit. I am not entirely happy with how NPOV is administered on 9/11-related articles, as you'll know from reading my comment at MONGO's RfC. Nor do I think you've always been treated with the civility or good faith that you (I at least believe) deserve. However, you should maybe ask yourself why it is so important to you to edit a particular subset of articles in a particular way. True believers are always the worst people to argue with here, no matter which side of which argument you are on, and the only way to advance arguments is generally to build consensus and to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself. Edit-warring and insults are unacceptable as they poison the atmosphere here, for all who would like to be involved. I do feel for your predicament here; why not walk away and have a think about how you can contribute better to this project? I know from reading your contributions that you are an intelligent person with a lot of good intentions; it would be a shame to lose you.

If there is any other way I can help you, don't hesitate to ask; but you have to accept that 3rr is an absolute rule, that you have broken it, and that you have been blocked fairly. Best wishes, --Guinnog 03:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a fair take, fairest in a while, I'll certainly admit some deep frustration, but that doesn’t make me unreasonable (well, at least I hope so)… please don't consider the following as some series of defensive statements, I'll simply share my opinion, which is based on how I perceive my work here. As you, I'm not completely satisfied with regards to NPOV and 9/11 related articles. Of course, I might have strong opinion on the background there, but to say that I'm true believer does seem like overstatement. You know, I'm capable of taking my own leaves (voluntary block, as we call it here)… ask my colleagues, they know about the amount of patience I've invested in this. Then again, I also know to push for a block, as to prove the point while taking a break. In retrospective, it's a bit eccentric course, but it's somewhat obvious I haven't recognized the full gravity of 3RR rule and that's my mistake. That said, from my perspective this "coordinated attack" (block, RfC, community sanction… the whole shebang) was not necessary, neither do I feel as if I deserved it. At least not in the manner I've just experienced… After all I've said that I'll respect any decision with regards to that unblock request, and we should have stopped then… Tell you what, to prove that there is no other passion then passion for logic, I'll restrain from editing 911 articles for a while, as I've done it before. I'll also restrain from any involvement with that 911ct template, although I might propose it for deletion if it doesn’t improve in near future. My opinion on that citation (which I'll also leave to rest) will, of course, remain the same, since I've done nothing wrong, except following our own guidelines. I'm sorry if you expected some sign of remorse, but that's as far as I'm willing to go, even if it means community ban. That said, this is huge issue and I hope there are some folks who are concerned about it. Finally, I'd appreciate if these (outside) attacks would seize for a while (since I'm not able to address them properly) and I like to hear some response to such notion. I'm not sure if this take was helpful, however, I'm certainly thankful for your kind response. Again, I'm ready to freeze my activities on 9/11 articles for couple of months. I'm not sure if I'm ready to excuse myself from chance to vote on various (related) polls and similes, but I'm pretty sure that I can respect (and accept) the 3RR between some very long time and indefinitely. Would you (involved editors, that is) consider this as acceptable course of action? Regards. Lovelight 05:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you would like, I will pass on to the community noticeboard discussion that you will voluntarily accept a 9/11 topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

…for how long would that be? And what about those points (voting, polling) I've made above? Lovelight 07:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting indefinite ban? I'll rather take that poison… I've done nothing wrong (apart breaking 3RR), so there is no need for such action (from my perspective, of course). Lovelight 08:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're offering to voluntarily accept it, it's up to you what you're offering. Of course, the strength of the offer is what will determine if the community will accept your proposal, or reject it in favor of an outright ban. For what it's worth, here's my advice.

Offer to accept a complete ban on anything 9/11 related for 3 months, maybe even longer. Keep away from anything having remotely to do with it. Find something else to work on. Go improve the articles on frogs, or Russian culture, or Coca-Cola. Work with WP:ACID, help them do whatever they're doing that week (so long as the one they pick isn't 9/11 related, of course!). Pick a non-9/11 related article that's a topic of interest to you, and drive it to WP:GA or WP:FA. Do anything but 9/11. In the meantime, if conflicts arise, stay out of them. Just watch. See how the dispute unfolds and how it gets resolved. Observe the tactics used when the debate ends up getting resolved amicably and peacefully, observe the missteps made when it blows up and someone winds up in trouble, or people end up leaving mad.

After that, you may not even want to return to 9/11 articles when time's up. Or you may. In that case, go back, with what you learned about how to resolve disputes and listen to others in hand. Remember to talk rather than to edit-war, remember that things won't always go the way you'd like to see them go, and remember the other guy thinks he's every bit as right as you think you are.

Let me know what you think, and I will pass it along. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not here since yesterday and the whole point of this discussion is to show that I'm able to resolve disputes. The fact that there are no valid arguments from the "other side" is not really my concern, and I say that as simple as any wikipedian would say. I'm tiered of all this, I'll take these two weeks; and let the community decide whatever it needs to decide. imo, the proper course would be to let me be, and allow me to address all this in front of ArbCom (i know what you think abut odd's there, but insisting on facts is not violation of any policy), however, I'm not sure that I'm willing to go through all that. I'm sorry, I've stated how far I'm willing to go above, and since all this what happened in last few days is nothing but a deliberate attempt to remove me from those topics, it would be unethical:) if I'd simply gave up. Couple of months, means couple of months, one, two, three? We'll see… If some folks won't to get rid of me in this (sleazy) way, so be it. Thanks for your help. Take care. Lovelight 08:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Some old thoughts, should have stayed buried… think I'll share now, since we need to put things in some perspective. Lovelight 13:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

just in case… revision above is about discerning facts from conspiracy, not about pushing conspiracies… if you state facts along with space beams… Enough said…

Re:Community Ban

I have indefinitely blocked your account, but not as a community ban. The block is set until if/when the Arbitration committee hears your case. Should they decline the case, the block will be lifted and the community ban discussion will reopen. I urge the involved parties to file a request for arbitration to resolve your edit warring. Teke 20:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lovely, thank you… Say, to whom are you replaying? To Tbeatty?;) Rhetorical question of course, I have no grudge with any administrator that enforced/endorsed these series of blocks, I'm aware that this page and history behind it might seem fuzzy, on first sight that is…

I'd like to avoid posting more of the "historical crap" here (on open ground), I'm not interested in incivility, this is about one thing and one thing only, this is about POV, or to be clearer, about violation of NPOV in main 9/11 article. Do say, how am I to state my case, should I stick it here and you boys will carry it to appropriate location? Please state your concerns, begin with proceedings, or let me do so. Lovelight 10:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If the "proceedings" you refer to are an arbitration request, you can email a member of the arbitration committee or clerk, and they'll file the case on your behalf. They may also ask you to present statements and evidence that way, or may unblock you to participate in the case, that's up to them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that, although I'm not certain that these "other venues" (I'm reading about) have been exercised with the regards to the case I'm about to present. As for current state of affairs, I'm actually anticipating some motion from involved editors, in other words, I'm looking forward to proper hearing on these allegations which user Golbez & user Mongo decided to share with wider community, without substantiating any of their claims. I've addressed their concerns above, and asked them to provide evidence of alleged behavior, so far both users failed to do so. There was clear reassurance that my responses will be taken into consideration (you've stated so yourself), so it does seem natural to have some sort of follow up… Anyway, as far as I've seen this block has been extended into indefinite, with the explanation that it's not a community ban, but… but something else? I'm not the one who initiated all this, and I'm not sure how to take the explanation of the administrator which enforced the block? Hopefully, you folks are not expecting that I file ArbCom request against myself?:) I'd appreciate some clarification, some thoughts… Lovelight 11:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

All right then, I'll consider all this to be utter failure of adminship… good luck, hope we'll continue this soon… I'm still waiting for that reply Jimmy… regards. Lovelight 12:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration requests are neither "for" nor "against" anyone. They're simply a request that the Arbitrators examine the situation, and the conduct of everyone involved in the situation. There is no "plaintiff" or "defendant", the ArbCom simply looks at what's going on and decides what needs to be done about it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I've expressed myself poorly, it started with 2 weeks block, continued with despicable (& extremely provocative) RfC (still expecting apology for that one) and ended up with indefinite community ban, that isn’t really a community ban? As I said, utter failure of… Lovelight 13:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lovelight...I just got your email...what exactly do you want me to do? I suggest you post your argument here so it can be moved to arbcom...start a new heading and explain your situation. All I did was post the information regarding your edits to the community sanction board...the community seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of an indefinite block. However, arbcom can always hear your case...so either post your argument here and I'll get one of the arbcom clerks to transclude it, or you can always email them.--MONGO 12:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Mongo, I'm looking forward to some explanation with regards to your statement that I'm "trying to add oftentimes ridiculiously silly conspiracy theory misinformation" to 9/11 attacks article. I've told you before I'm ok with you being yourself, you know all that... Wouldn’t you say that you've mislead community with your statements at that community ban motion? This is not about disagreement between me & you… if such thing even exist? This is about NPOV, you've seen my letter… you've started all this, no good faith there… ooh… I really need a break… so I'll take some & then I'll take that advice. Regards. Lovelight 13:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The almost endless barrage of youtube videos is hardly helpful...that stuff isn't reliable most of the time anyway. It's soapboxing. Linking to other stuff that is obviously rejected by the scientific community doesn't help us either...a great deal (not by all means all) your contributions, especially to talkpages is simply not a proper use of a talkpage. Some conversations are fine of course, but when we have to constantly sift through youtube videos and other things of less than useful knowledge, it becomes disruption. Regardless, your continued edit warring and quick digression into personal attacks was the reason I asked for a community review and possible sanction.--MONGO 13:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess you are referring to that time around last year memorial? That was our first encounter… you've called me a troll and there was a boilerplate involved? If I can recall correctly… I'm sorry but at that time I had no idea about any of our policies, neither did I knew what a rs is… I've learned a lot since then though… although not because involved editors pointed me in right direction… You have a very strong opinion on these issues; I'm serious when I say that you see a conspiracy where there is none. As seen, NPOV is being discussed again (I'd say that these discussions are getting better at each run); it should be clear what this is all about. I'm aware of many mistakes I've made; I've certainly shifted my perspective a lot since first involvement. However, after almost a year on wikipedia I'd say I've got a pretty good insight in all the things that are wrong here, hopefully there will be an opportunity to reflect on all that… but I do need a break now. Lovelight 13:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure when was the last time that I've tried to insert unreliable source, but I'd say it's been more than a while… Lovelight 13:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I'll endorse this indefinite ban, such crap, thank you… & farewell. Lovelight 14:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm requesting full protection of this talk page; please add notice about indefinite community ban to my user page. Thanks. Lovelight 01:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)